From: | Jerry Jelinek <jerry(dot)jelinek(at)joyent(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: patch to allow disable of WAL recycling |
Date: | 2018-07-11 12:37:00 |
Message-ID: | CACPQ5FoYw6Tz7dQMjWSKndA9iRnHg38RzWTh8QKJ=DyzmHARww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro,
I'll perform several test runs with various combinations and post the
results.
Thanks,
Jerry
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-10, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
>
> > 2) Disabling WAL recycling reduces reliability, even on COW filesystems.
>
> I think the problem here is that WAL recycling in normal filesystems
> helps protect the case where filesystem gets full. If you remove it,
> that protection goes out the window. You can claim that people needs to
> make sure to have available disk space, but this does become a problem
> in practice. I think the thing to do is verify what happens with
> recycling off when the disk gets full; is it possible to recover
> afterwards? Is there any corrupt data? What happens if the disk gets
> full just as the new WAL file is being created -- is there a Postgres
> PANIC or something? As I understand, with recycling on it is easy (?)
> to recover, there is no PANIC crash, and no data corruption results.
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-07-11 12:37:46 | Re: Preferring index-only-scan when the cost is equal |
Previous Message | amul sul | 2018-07-11 12:06:19 | Re: partition pruning doesn't work with IS NULL clause in multikey range partition case |